How the Democrats Can Use Moral Foundations Theory Against Trump

Tom Edsall of the New York Times just published a column giving responses from me and other professors and political strategists to this question: Given the many claims and promises Donald Trump has made which will be impossible to fulfill, how should the Democrats refute them? (E.g., Trump’s claim that he would grow the economy by 6% per year, or end birthright citizenship.) Edsall printed the best parts of my response, but as long as I have a blog where I can post my entire response, here it is:

Hi Tom,

Your question presupposes that the Democrats should be trying to create better arguments. Yes, they should, but that is not the place to start. One of the basic principles of psychology is that the mind is divided into parts that sometimes conflict, like a small rider (conscious verbal reasoning) sitting atop a large elephant (the other 98% of mental processes, which are automatic and intuitive). The elephant is much stronger, and is quite smart in its own way. If the elephant wants to walk to the right, it’s going to, and there’s no point in trying to persuade the rider to steer to the left. In fact, the elephant really runs the show, and the rider’s job is really to help the elephant get where it wants to go. This is why all of us are so brilliant at finding post-hoc justifications for whatever we want to believe. And this is why, in matters of politics and morality, you must speak to the elephant first. Trump did this brilliantly in the Republican primary, and in his convention speech. But how will he do when he appeals to people in the broader electorate?

I think the Democrats need to tell a story about Trump that activates deep and powerful moral intuitions, so that vast numbers of voters find their elephants moving away from Trump. At that point, good arguments will stick.

I think there are two main approaches. The first links to deep moral intuitions about fairness versus cheating and exploitation. Trump presents himself as a successful businessman. But a good businessman creates positive-sum interactions. He leaves a long trail of satisfied customers who want to buy from him again, and a long trail of satisfied partners who want to work with him again. Trump has not done this. He thinks about everything as a zero sum interaction, which he usually wins — and therefore the person who dealt with him loses. I think the Democrats should give voice to a long parade of people — former customers and partners — who deeply regret dealing with Trump. Trump cheats, exploits, deceives. Trump is a con-man, and we are his biggest mark yet. Don’t let him turn us all into suckers.

The second approach is to link to moral intuitions about loyalty, authority, and sanctity. These are the moral foundations that authoritarians and ultra-nationalists generally appeal to, and Trump sure did this in his convention speech. But these can be turned against him too. Trump talks about patriotism (a form of loyalty), but he seems to be pals with one of our main adversaries (Putin) while telling our friends in the Baltics that we may not defend them. In these ways he brings shame to America and weakens our stature among our friends. The moral importance of authority is in part that it creates order, and Trump talks a great deal about law and order, yet he is the chaos candidate who will throw America into constant constitutional crises, throw the world into recession, and throw our alliances into disarray. The moral importance of sanctity is that it brings dignity and exaltation to people, places, and institutions that can unite people who worship things in common. The psychology of sacredness evolved as part of our religious nature, but people use the same psychology toward kings, the constitution, national heroes, and, to a decreasing degree, to the American presidency. Trump degrades it all with his crassness, his obscene language, his fear-mongering and his inability to offer soaring rhetoric. What a contrast with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Reagan.

So I don’t think the Democrats should focus on raising doubts about his specific promises at this point. They should focus on linking Trump to violations of deeply held moral intuitions. If they can first speak persuasively to voters’ elephants, they will then find it much easier to speak to the reason-based riders, and to raise doubts about the specific things Trump has promised.

39 Comments

Wow! Are you seriously advocating that the Democrats further ratchet up military tensions with Russia and exploit this as a campaign issue?

Hey! While you’re at it why don’t you ratchet up racial tensions in the U.S. by claiming that White policemen are constantly gunning down innocent Black men for no reason, and exploit that as a campaign issue as well? What harm could possibly come from such tactics?

The point that Jonathan’s work makes so brilliantly is that when talking to people’s “riders” you are essentially arguing with a hyperactive defense attorney and doomed to lose. Time and again. The “Facts” as you see them simply don’t matter when Trump is appealing to the intuitive/emotional elephant inside people’s minds, below conscious awareness. In other words, Trump is not successful because of detailed policy points and therefore won’t be defeated by them.

Yes, it’s a lot like an internet forum, where you have aggressive advocates on two sides who will never be persuaded, but they are really playing to the much more numerous “lurkers” who are actually listening to the arguments. There has to be a core of fact and policy though. In this case immigration was the key for Trump. That was what made his campaign take off. He has built a nationalist “America First” policy platform around this key issue, and done so brilliantly imo.

I think Dr. Haidt’s comment about Trump being a “con-man” was in reference to actual cons Trump has instigated as legally defined.

Trump’s winning of the election does not make him a con man, it makes him an excellent elephant whisperer. Dr. Haidt, in my opinion, was not advocating the adoption of Trump’s ethics, but his communication style. Trump spoke to the human part of America, and he was able to later on get them to fall in line with policies that are (to many others) repulsive.

I think the driving thesis of Dr. Haidt’s blog above was to remind us that Trump can be counteracted by remembering that both Republicans and Democrats are humans with moral foundations. Democrats forgot this (of which I am one) and painted Republicans quite literally as “deplorables.” We can ensure that the next election will offer better choices and more credibility by remembering our shared humanity.

If you think Russia will accept Americas patronizing gesture of friendship then you’re naive. Because in Trump labguage America was the winner and Russia was the loser and Russia knows this better than anyone. You want to make America great again? Well so does Russia and their nationalism gives people an even bigger hard-on than it does US conservatives. Since ur a Trumpsupporter u know that to be great u need to win and be number one. And there can be only 1 number one. The others are a loser. That’s what all this childish US China Russia nationlistic conflicts ate about.
Russia helped Trump win US elections because he is incompetent and self interested and will likely bring America down. They got their wish so America better watch their back.

Also many people worldwide already saw several videos in which innocent black men were gunned down by white police for no apparent reason. That rarely happens to white men. What do you think is the problem if not racism? Really bad luck? That is a legitimate problem that needs to be solved, not a narrative to win votes by raising racial tension.

This is similar to Haidt’s observation about Trump being a con man. Any business which has been successful will have people who blame that firm for things which may or may not have been caused by the business itself. Often, we humans blame other people for things which are caused by our own action or inaction. We take rhetorical hyperbole as literal statements. We delude ourselves into believing things which are too good to be true, then blame someone else for our own rosy-tinted interpretations. That sort of thing causes other good people to be blamed for our own shortcomings.

In the case of racism, very few people even know what racism is. Most academics, media and young people today accept very distorted definitions promulgated by those with a vested interest in maintaining or even intensifying the conflict which exists. Racism is not an institutional issue of existential proportions; it is a practice of mistreating or exploiting people on the basis of race instead of on the content of their character. Racism is not about outcomes in a vacuum with no consideration of behavior; it is about making a choice to harm another person because they are racially different from us.

In fact, far more white men than black men are shot by police. The reason we don’t see that is that our media do not go out of their way to publicize it the way they do when black men are shot. The truth is that there is hatred based on race and there is hatred based on many other factors. All races include people who hate those of other races just for existing, or for some past slights, whether they are real or imagined.

If you read more of what Haidt actually wrote, rather than just a response to a partisan editor of a partisan newspaper, you will learn more about the overall foundation of how people on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of many conflicts have been talking past one another for years. We need to focus more on how to understand one another and less on how to blame or dismiss one another based on partial and superficial realities. Perhaps then we can learn how to reach a modus vivendi with which we can all live in peace.

Trump views Putin as a potential ally rather than as evil incarnate, and hopes that the US and Russia can work constructively together. I fail to see how this “brings shame upon us.” What I do think is shameful is the idea that somehow the Democrats can exploit Trump’s position by appealing to the natural patriotism of the electorate. There is nothing remotely unpatriotic or disloyal about Trump’s forthrightly expressed position on this most crucial issue.

“Hysteria and hyperbole are powerful things: put Donald Trump, American Russophobia and national party conventions into the same cocktail shaker and something potent is sure to come out. But one thing seems pretty clear: Donald Trump has never had what it takes to succeed in business in Russia. And barring a miraculous transformation of either Russia or the GOP nominee himself, he never will have … And There are two reasons why there are no Trump projects in Russia: in the past, it was too risky, and now, as the country grinds through its third year of austerity, there is no demand for his brand of upmarket bling.”http://fortune.com/2016/07/30/donald-trump-business-russia-putin/

So Trump has no business interests in Russia per Fortune Magazine. Also, note that Trump’s opposition to military aggression against Russia is quite consistent with his opposition to our Wars in the Middle East:

“After fifteen years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before. This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness”

PS – I should also point out that to all appearances Hillary Clinton , while she was Secretary of State, took HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in bribes from Russian corporations interested in purchasing a strategic U.S. plutonium company. This deal was actually made with the enthusiastic support of the Secretary of State.

Tim, that’s a good point about Hillary’s potential conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation accepting $ related to the Uranium sale to Russia. I wouldn’t excuse Clinton from this conflict of interest, and no one should excuse Trump from his conflicts of interest with his company, which has business interests all of the world. We should all be vigilant, Democrats and Republicans against corruption!

That Trump thinks it is OK that Russia took and keeps the Crimea is shameful. Will he let Russia have Estonia, too? He shows little understanding of geopolitics and the importance of maintaining allies.

The US (Victoria Nuland et al) destabilized the entire region by violently overthrowing the democratically elected government of the Ukraine which they viewed as too pro-Russian. Russia quite rightly moved to secure their military base in Crimea. This was the only responsible thing to do in the circumstances. The Crimean people endorsed Russia’s move overwhelmingly in a referendum, and the result has been confirmed by numerous independent pollsters.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

PS – Given your concern about supporting our NATO allies I should also point out that Victoria Nuland famously said “F__K the EU” in reference to their opposition to her plot in the Ukraine. This is the level of contempt that the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs serving under Hillary Clinton held for our European allies.

Actually, the real shame is the Trump did not even know that Russia had taken part of Ukraine. Tim, you seem to have a penchant for throwing in all sorts of tangential cruft. That would indicate that you know Trump is vulnerable on the issue of patriotism.

Well, the next few months will tell. I hope that Trump’s core message of “America First” will resonate more strongly even on the left than Hillary’s feminism, BLM, La Raza, LBGTQ, open borders etc platform. I would urge those on the left with open minds and good hearts to give a careful listen to Trump’s speech on foreign policy and to his acceptance speech.

Haidt hints at it when he says “in matters of politics and morality, you must speak to the elephant first. Trump did this brilliantly in the Republican primary, and in his convention speech” — basically, he’s saying that Trump doesn’t need any help, he already intuitively pushes people’s moral foundations buttons. If you read more Haidt, you’ll see that his general thesis is that conservatives are better at speaking to a wider range of people’s moral intuitions than the American left.

Great post and suggestions Mr. Haidt. Its a good example of how to use your moral ‘tastes’ from your book which I recently read and loved. Been thinking about how to apply them practically. Would love to see more examples like this from you.

I just finished your book in preparation for upcoming medical school interviews, and I absolutely loved it. It has caused me to rethink all of the political views I have long believed to be “fundamental truths.” Thank you for sharing your wisdom and brilliant research!

The ELEPHANT Jonathan Haidt invokes is likely a metaphor for what our post modern materialist psyche seems to deny: THE UNCONSCIOUS COMPLEXES. It seems to me that the discourse on “the moral” is only a small part of what motivates us, what energizes us, what is behind our leanings that are inherently irrational. It is possible that it is terrifying to consider the power of the unconscious complexes, the energies that are outside of our “conscious” or “moral” being. What in the depths of the American soul brings out venomous visceral hatred for Hilary Clinton ? It is an energy of darkness out of proportion to the rational and factual realities. What is the visceral hatred toward Donald Trump about ? Coming from deep images he represents, unconscious energies we do not understand with our thinking minds? Each candidate ignites in us different deep complexes, but some of us are propelled by a combination of fear, hope, yearning, all the yinyangs of the depths. Again, the “moral” discussion is only part of the explanation; Jon Haidt’s perspectives although powerful, are only a small part of the reality.

It seems to me that the Democrats are confronted by significant challenges with respect to the first approach you outlined, Dr. Haidt.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Hillary Clinton’s story certainly “activates deep and powerful moral intuitions” concerning “fairness vs. cheating and exploitation.” More over, to the extent that she is viewed as untrustworthy by the public at large, these perceptions relate specifically to the public trust.

Whatever one thinks of Donald Trump’s mistakes or mismanagement in his private enterprises, it is demonstrable fact that he has overcome, persevered, and rebuilt his brand to a level of success that allowed him to finance a great deal of his own primary campaign while dismantling what many Republican pundits and politicians considered to be a truly great field of presidential candidates.

Intuitively, I think average voters understand that in business there are ups and downs. Average voters also relate to picking oneself up after falling down.

To me, your claim that Trump isn’t a good businessman because he’s not left behind him a long trail of satisfied customers who return to patronize his brand or partners who want to work with him is undercut by a long list of actual business successes.

Certainly it is fair to point out when and where he has failed… as long as you are honest enough to recognize when and where he has not.

Clinton, on the other hand, has left behind her a trail of utter disaster which is linked directly to her “career” as a “public servant.” Limiting the examination of her record to just her time as Secretary of State provides ample evidence of her incompetence and moral deficiencies. While Democrats celebrate the fact that no criminal indictment proceeded from the FBI investigations into her handling of classified information and use of a private, unsanctioned communications network, it is a fact that the Director of the FBI personally and very publicly told voters that there was indeed evidence of per se violations of federal law.

A good statesman or public servant doesn’t leave behind him/her a trail of staffers who invoke their 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination and/or require grants of immunity in exchange for cooperating with law enforcement. How is that supposed to be reasonably construed by the voting public with respect to our moral intuitions concerning fairness vs. cheating and exploitation?

This is a story that resonates deeply with people’s moral intuitions, and one that is far more concerning than the legitimate “exploitation” of tax laws or bankruptcy laws.

The second approach you outline is far more vexing to me, coming from you, because it requires a much deeper level of purposeful dishonesty. For example, to assert that Trump “seems to be pals” with Putin is wildly disingenuous. That Putin projects authority and an unwaivering commitment to his country’s best interests as he sees them is beyond question. Among the many adjectives that could be used to describe him in context to his leadership, “strong” would be applicable, no? Observing as much doesn’t endorse his methods, goals, or make them “pals.”

As a proud American citizen, it fills me with sadness to look around the world and see leaders who project strength, such as Netanyahu and yes, Putin, who put their own countries interests ahead of some idealistic global agenda while my President slinks around telling other leaders he’ll have more “flexibility” after being reelected or surrendering our influence in the middle east to a stronger leader who’s aggressively asserting his power as ours dwindles.

I certainly do not enjoy watching Putin flexing his muscle on the world stage, but I am forced to watch exactly that because of the feckless and undisciplined approach to foreign affairs that Mrs. Clinton contributed much in establishing.

It is worth noting here that as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s first priority was the so-called Russian Reset (wherein as the executive manager of that department she presented her Russian counterpart a red “reset” button… that didn’t say “reset” at all). What happened to that? Why do we still regard Russia as an adversary if Hillary Clinton’s talent for leadership and geopolitical prowess is as formidable as it’s being advertised?

Then there is Syria, Libya, and Iraq. The trail of displaced persons threatening the stability of communities and governments throughout Europe leads directly back to initiatives of the Clinton State Department. Furthermore, while she is not singularly responsible for the Obama Administration’s failure to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq, she was a high-level contributor to and advocate for that policy “failure” (assuming it was a failure and not a smokescreen to implement the larger goal of withdrawing from that theater in keeping with campaign promises). ISIS emerged and thrived and has grown to a point where it’s inspired “open-source jihad” throughout the Western World.

Do not think that Americans are intuititionally unaware of the Democrats commitment to the sanctity of our nation, existentially. Which is to say, we instinctively recognize the erosion of our sovereignty and the ruling elite’s lack of concern for that loss.

Our moral intuitions that pertain to authority recognize that only Donald Trump recognizes OURS. The will of the People has been flatly ignored on the issue of immigration for decades. We have been fed a steady diet of words and phrases like, “comprehensive immigration reform,” while we starve for action and the implementation of real solutions.

And, on what basis do you claim that Donald Trump will throw America into “constant Constitutional crises?” What is that, if not a clear example of fear-mongering? Which moral intuition are you attempting to exploit through such hyperbole?

Finally, I wish to ask you about the emphasis you seem to place on “soaring rhetoric.” What value is “soaring rhetoric” to an American Electorate that cannot and does not trust it’s political class? The perception career politicians have labored to implant in our minds is that the Us vs. Them dynamic at play in America refers to partisan divides or other arbitrary distinctions (race, gender, income, etc.). More and more, it seems to me, We are beginning to understand that the real Us. vs. Them dynamic is more accurately viewed as being between the “Establishment” ruling class elites vs. the rest of us.

Soaring rhetoric seems to me to be little more than an effective means of manipulating We The People and distracting us from the fact that I have way more in common with citizens of any race, gender, orientation, faith, income level, or what have you, than I’ll ever have with the so-called leaders of the Party which claims to represent my values and interests. And so too do career politicians have more in common with each other, regardless of party affiliation, than they’ll ever have with us peasants.

Anyway, having said all that, let me assure you that despite my rather significant objections to the content of your post above, I have the utmost respect for you. I very much enjoyed The Righteous Mind and I do find your blog posts and other internet content very insightful, albeit imperfect.

Wow. That was really good Caleb O!
I thought some of the same things as I read the original post by Dr. Haidt.
I would like to hear his response.
I have read the book The Righteous Mind and really appreciate it. And I began to listen to a few of his Ted talks, but to be frank, I was beginning to recognize an undercurrent superiority to his liberal view that was a bit of a put off. I didn’t really get that sense from the book.
I would like a point by point response to the items you brought out.
Why is this discussion board so slow with input and continued dialog?
And why does the Asteroid Club, which I think is a good idea so apparently inactive?
Thanks again Caleb O.

Well, your long rant pretty much proved Jonathan Haidt’s point in The Righteous Mind. You might check your scores on Loyalty and Authority.

But I think you also proved the point of Jean Pierre’s comment of October 6, that your exceptional and, by any reasonable measure, irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton seems to suggest that you are in the grip of a powerful complex or set of complexes that are operating in addition to, if not in concert with, your strong attractions to Loyalty and Authority.

Caleb, I think your long rant about Hillary Clinton much proved Jonathan Haidt’s thesis in The Righteous Mind. You might want to check your Loyalty scores, which would seem to be off the chart.

And it seems your completely counterfactual and irrational hatred toward our next president also proved the point of Jean Pierre above, that you seem to be in the grip of some powerful complexes that are boiling up in your unconscious.

I have wondered whether six factor Moral Foundation Theory should consider a few additional factors, because the existing ones don’t seem adequate to explain the enormous fear and anger unleashed by the radical right, and the exceptional and deep-seated pessimism they feel for our country.

“That Putin projects authority and an unwaivering commitment to his country’s best interests as he sees them is beyond question.”

Do you really believe that is what Putin is doing? Or is it an unwavering commitment to his own interests and those of the other oligarchs that are siphoning off the wealth of the Russian nation? At the expense of it’s citizens….not to mention his habits of murdering journalists and opposition leaders.

If that is one’s idea of a “strong” leader than I don’t want “strong” leaders.

I was reading TheRighteousMind, which claims to have a goal of building bridges. I am extremely disappointed to see the most recent posts to be “how tos” for Democrat strategeis to defeat Trump. Bridge builders are not supposed to be arms dealers for any side.

Caleb O.s post above speaks our disappointment. Charles L.s response is insults without facts, which is, how would the good doctor put it? A rider beating the elephants around him. A troll move.

Sadly my trust in the author is broken. His insights and advice now contain the taint of an agenda, and are suspect. You broke the deal with your readers doctor. Putting your book down.

Coming late to this discussion, but I agree with Aesop and Caleb that I was very disappointed in Dr Haidt after reading his letter. He provides no evidence and this line sounds very irrational in that context “Trump cheats, exploits, deceives. Trump is a con-man, and we are his biggest mark yet”. It’s a shame as I was enjoying the Righteous Mind. Now Dr Haidt’s another liberal Trump hater piling on with the Russia narrative.

Didn’t work out too well as a sales pitch, and lecture on “cheating” did it.

I am left wondering just what common moral intuitions might be emphasized in order to convince a struggling but still independent family that a government command which results in their paying 6 or 7 thousand a year for mandated medical insurance – designed from the start said Gruber as a disguised wealth transfer from the middle class to the uninsured – which buys them nothing in practical terms, and has a 6 thousand dollar deductible, is somehow moral.

I suppose you might tell them that the cascading effects of illegal immigration on hospital systems, and which arguably and in part led eventually to Obama Care, and to the financial raping they are experiencing, is a good thing.

You might try and convince them that they will have good “feelz” as what slender prospect they have of saving and accumulating financial capital which they can then leverage in hopes of a better life, are wiped out in order to fund the altruistic impulses of those who have designed their lives around seeking to insulate themselves from these very effects via government sinecures.

You might tell them to take comfort in the fact that the hive will – statistically if not distributively – do well off of their government planned dispossession, immiseration, and reduction to lumpen-proletariat status in the name of a pan-national social justice and progressive “feelz”.

Wow. I’m surprised at all the conservative trolls in the comments. Elephants all. I loved your book, Dr. Haidt. It gave me a lot to think about and helped me understand a little better why conservatives act and vote the way they do. So, yes, it definitely builds bridges. At least for me it did.

There are posters here who apparently don’t care what the other side thinks and have no interest in understanding anything beyond their myopic world views. I guess they will not be part ofor building political coalitions. Hopefully enough people who read your book can take away some meaning from it. Our future as a nation depends on talking to each other and understanding one another.

Using moral dimensions you don’t even have to construct an argument against your opponent who only won because he appealed to those dimensions originally when you didn’t want to, but wanted to ignore the legitimate concerns of people who have those dimensions instead, and even grind them into dust because they get in the way of your retarded preoccupation with a tiny subset of human morality to the exclusion and at the expense of everything else.

How to appeal to moral dimensions you don’t even have to construct an argument against an opponent who only won because he appealed to those dimensions when you didn’t want to, but wanted to ignore the legitimate concerns of people who had them instead, and even grind them low because they get in the way of your retarded preoccupation with a tiny subset of the moral spectrum to the exclusion and at the expense of all else.